$499 RF 35/1.8 have (IS + Macro) but not in a $479 EF-M 32/1.4 (annoying)

007peter wrote:

Back2M wrote: As a former 32mm owner, and R and RF 35 owner, the RF 35 is serious bang for your buck. It's the 22mm or the R system, that is, it's one of the R system's special powers (for the moment). Canon's luring folks to the R system with it.

You are the ONLY GUY here who gets what I"m saying.

• No, I'm not seeking an alternative lens suggestion
• No, I'm not saying F/1.4 doesn't have advantage over F/1.8 with IS + Macro

What I am saying is that for a mere $20 difference, you get

• Image Stabilization - critical for video
• 0.5x Macro - however small, is way better than 0.25x on 32/1.4
• There is no double that you far more MONEY VALUE buying RF > EF-M

Isn't the whole point of keeping EF-M is for portabile consumer and RF as premium full frame? But when you judge a lens by its capability, RF lens is now offering more value for mony, more useful feature.

While I agree with previous suggestion that EF-M 28/3.5 Macro is a nice lens, it doesn't remove the fact that for I can buy a RF 35/1.8 IS STM (0.5x) Macro for just $499, yet a EF-M 32/1.4 (design for a cheaper consumer platform) lack these feature.

Like I say, it just an ANNOYANCE rant, nothing more.

No, I get what you're saying, just I don't completely agree with it. Yes, on the surface, the RF lens looks more like an EF-M spec and the EF-M lens more like an RF. But I think that's actually what makes each lens particularly interesting for each system. Like I said, if you want a lens that does lots of tricks, the EF-M 28 is pretty much that lens, save for a fairly dim max aperture. The 32 isn't really directly comparable with the RF 35, because they have different angles of view; the 32 is equivalent to a 50, and there's no 50 in the R range that compares to it, and much though I loved my old 50mm f1.4 USM, the 32 is a far better lens. But the value proposition for the 32 isn't the spec, but the performance. It's a magnificent little lens that's incredibly sharp, and brighter than any other EF-M lens. For the price, it's actually really good value. You say you would give up some of that aperture for IS and macro focusing - fair enough, that's what you would have preferred. For me, though, the 28 covers macro pretty well, and I've got a couple of Viltrox extension tubes that give me closer focusing with any EF-M lens, cost very little, and are extremely lightweight. I agree, IS would be nice, but I personally wouldn't want to give up that little bit extra on the aperture, as that's the lens's whole purpose for me - to allow differential focusing, not all that easy on APS-C. And I feel that implementing IS would have pushed the lens price beyond where Canon felt comfortable. Any lens is a compromise; I understand that you don't think it's the right one for you, and that's fine. Even though I'm not over-keen on the angle of view of a 50mm equivalent (I much prefer 35mm equivalent, i.e. the 22), I personally think Canon made the right choice - I can't see any advantage of more or less duplicating the 28 as a 32/35, makes far more sense to me to offer something different.
The R lens is that something different for that system, and I believe the reason why it has STM is nothing to do with cost, but everything to do with the fact it's aimed at vloggers.

So I sympathise with you, but don't share your feelings.